Why is it a problem if we have a huge piece of code between new and delete of a char array.
Example
void this_is_bad() /* You wouldn't believe how often this kind of code can be found */
{
char *p = new char[5]; /* spend some cycles in the memory manager */
/* do some stuff with p */
delete[] p; /* spend some more cycles, and create an opportunity for a leak */
}
Because somebody may throw an exception.
Because somebody may add a return.
If you have lots of code between the new and delete you may not spot that you need to deallocate the memory before the throw/return?
Why do you have a RAW pointer in your code.
Use a std::vector.
The article you reference is making the point that
char p[5];
would be just as effective in this case and have no danger of a leak.
In general, you avoid leaks by making the life cycle of allocated memory very clear, the new and the delete can be seen to be related.
Large separation between the two is harder to check, and needs to consider carefully whether there are any ways out of the code that might dodge the delete.
The link (and source) of that code is lamenting the unnecessary use of the heap in that code. For a constant, and small, amount of memory there's no reason not to allocate it on the stack.
Instead:
void this_is_good()
{
/* Avoid allocation of small temporary objects on the heap*/
char p[5]; /* Use the stack instead */
/* do some stuff */
}
There's nothing inherently wrong with the original code though, its just less than optimal.
Next to all interesting answers about the heap, and about having new and delete occur close to each other, I might add that the sheer fact of having a huge amount of code in one function is to be avoided. If the huge amount of code separates two related lines of code, it's even worse.
I would differentiate between 'amount of work' and 'amount of code':
void do_stuff( char* const p );
void formerly_huge_function() {
char* p = new char[5];
CoInitialize( NULL );
do_stuff( p );
CoUninitialize();
delete[] p;
}
Now do_stuff can do a lot of things without interfering with the allocation problem. But also other symmetrical stuff stays together this way.
It's all about the guy who's going to maintain your code. It might be you, in a month.
That particular example isn't stating that having a bunch of code in between a new and delete is necessarily bad; it stating that if there are ways to write code that don't use the heap, you might want to prefer that to avoid heap corruption.
It's decent enough advice; if you reduce the amount you use the heap, you know where to look when the heap is corrupted.
I would argue that it's not a problem to have huge amounts of code between a new and delete of any variable. The idea of using new is to place a value on the heap and hence keep it alive for long periods of time. Having code execute on these values is an expected operation.
What can get you into trouble when you have huge amounts of code within the same method between a new and delete is the chance of accidentally leaking the variable due to ...
An exception being thrown
Methods that get so long you can't see the begining or end and hence people start arbitrarily returning from the middle without realizing they skipped a delete call
Both of these can be fixed by using an RAII type such as std::vector<char> instead of a new / delete pair.
It isn't, assuming that the "huge piece of code":
Always runs "delete [] p;" before calling "p = new char[size];" or "throw exception;"
Always runs "p = 0;" after calling "delete [] p;"
Failure to meet the first condition, will cause the contents of p to be leaked. Failure to meet the second condition may result in a double-delete. In general, it is best to use std::vector, so as to avoid any problems.
Are you asking if this would be better?
void this_is_great()
{
char* p = new char[5];
delete[] p;
return;
}
It's not.
Related
I am creating an Arduino device using C++. I need a stack object with variable size and variable data types. Essentially this stack needs to be able to be resized and used with bytes, chars, ints, doubles, floats, shorts, and longs.
I have a basic class setup, but with the amount of dynamic memory allocation that is required, I wanted to make sure that my use of data frees enough space for the program to continue without memory problems. This does not use std methods, but instead built in versions of those for the Arduino.
For clarification, my question is: Are there any potential memory problems in my code?
NOTE: This is not on the Arduino stack exchange because it requires an in depth knoweledge of C/C++ memory allocation that could be useful to all C and C++ programmers.
Here's the code:
Stack.h
#pragma once
class Stack {
public:
void init();
void deinit();
void push(byte* data, size_t data_size);
byte* pop(size_t data_size);
size_t length();
private:
byte* data_array;
};
Stack.cpp
#include "Arduino.h"
#include "Stack.h"
void Stack::init() {
// Initialize the Stack as having no size or items
data_array = (byte*)malloc(0);
}
void Stack::deinit() {
// free the data so it can be re-used
free(data_array);
}
// Push an item of variable size onto the Stack (byte, short, double, int, float, long, or char)
void Stack::push(byte* data, size_t data_size) {
data_array = (byte*)realloc(data_array, sizeof(data_array) + data_size);
for(size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(data); i++)
data_array[sizeof(data_array) - sizeof(data) + i] = data[i];
}
// Pop an item of variable size off the Stack (byte, short, double, int, float, long, or char)
byte* Stack::pop(size_t data_size) {
byte* data;
if(sizeof(data_array) - data_size >= 0) {
data = (byte*)(&data_array + sizeof(data_array) - data_size);
data_array = (byte*)realloc(data_array, sizeof(data_array) - data_size);
} else {
data = NULL;
}
// Make sure to free(data) when done with the data from pop()!
return data;
}
// Return the sizeof the Stack
size_t Stack::length() {
return sizeof(data_array);
}
There are some minor code bugs, apparently, which -- although important -- are easily resolved. The following answer only applies to the overall design of this class:
There is nothing wrong with just the code that is shown.
But only the code that's shown. No opinion is rendered on any code that's not shown.
And, it's fairly likely that there are going to be massive problems, and memory leaks, in the rest of the code which will attempt to use this class.
It's going to very, very easy to use this class in a way that leaks or corrupts memory. It's going to be much harder to use this class correctly, and much easier to screw up. The fact that these functions themselves appear to do their job correctly is not going to help if all you have to do is sneeze in the wrong direction, and end up with these functions not being used in the proper order, or sequence.
Just to name the first two readily apparent problems:
1) Failure to call deinit(), when any instance of this class goes out of scope and gets destroyed, will leak memory. Every time you use this class, you have to be cognizant of when the instance of this class goes out of scope and gets destroyed. It's easy to keep track of every time you create an instance of this class, and it's easy to remember to call init() every time. But keeping track of every possible way an instance of this class could go out of scope and get destroyed, so that you must call deinit() and free up the internal memory, is much harder. It's very easy to not even realize when that happens.
2) If an instance of this class gets copy-constructed, or the default assignment operator gets invoked, this is guaranteed to result in memory corruption, with an extra side-helping of a memory leak.
Note that you don't have to go out of your way to write code that copy-constructs, or assigns one instance of the object to another one. The compiler will be more than happy to do it for you, if you do not pay attention.
Generally, the best way to avoid these kinds of problems is to make it impossible to happen, by using the language correctly. Namely:
1) Following the RAII design pattern. Get rid of init() and deinit(). Instead, do this work in the object's constructor and destructor.
2) Either deleting the copy constructor and the assignment operator, or implementing them correctly. So, if instances of this class should never be copy-constructed or assigned-to, it's much better to have the compiler yell at you, if you accidentally write some code that does that, instead of spending a week tracking down where that happens. Or, if the class can be copy-constructed or assigned, doing it properly.
Of course, if there would only be a small number of instances of this class, it should be possible to safely use it, with tight controls, and lots of care, without doing this kind of a redesign. But, even if it were the case, it's always better to do the job right, instead of shrugging this off now, but then later deciding to expand the use of this class in more places, and then forgetting about the fact that this class is so error-prone.
P.S.: a few of the minor bugs that I mentioned in the beginning:
data_array = (byte*)realloc(data_array, sizeof(data_array) + data_size);
This can't be right. data_array is a byte *, so sizeof(data_array) will always be a compile-time constant, which would be sizeof(byte *). That's obviously not what you want here. You need to explicitly keep track of the allocated array's size.
The same general bug appears in several other places here, but it's easily fixed. The overall class design is the bigger problem.
Suppose I have the following snippet.
int main()
{
int num;
int* cost;
while(cin >> num)
{
int sum = 0;
if (num == 0)
break;
// Dynamically allocate the array and set to all zeros
cost = new int [num];
memset(cost, 0, num);
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
cin >> cost[i];
sum += cost[i];
}
cout << sum/num;
}
` `delete[] cost;
return 0;
}
Although I can move the delete statement inside the while loop
for my code, for understanding purposes, I want to know what happens with the code as it's written. Does C++ allocate different memory spaces each time I use operator new?
Does operator delete only delete the last allocated cost array?
Does C++ allocate different memory spaces each time I use operator new?
Yes.
Does operator delete only delete the last allocated cost array?
Yes.
You've lost the only pointers to the others, so they are irrevocably leaked. To avoid this problem, don't juggle pointers, but use RAII to manage dynamic resources automatically. std::vector would be perfect here (if you actually needed an array at all; your example could just keep reading and re-using a single int).
I strongly advise you not to use "C idioms" in a C++ program. Let the std library work for you: that's why it's there. If you want "an array (vector) of n integers," then that's what std::vector is all about, and it "comes with batteries included." You don't have to monkey-around with things such as "setting a maximum size" or "setting it to zero." You simply work with "this thing," whose inner workings you do not [have to ...] care about, knowing that it has already been thoroughly designed and tested.
Furthermore, when you do this, you're working within C++'s existing framework for memory-management. In particular, you're not doing anything "out-of-band" within your own application "that the standard library doesn't know about, and which might (!!) it up."
C++ gives you a very comprehensive library of fast, efficient, robust, well-tested functionality. Leverage it.
There is no cost array in your code. In your code cost is a pointer, not an array.
The actual arrays in your code are created by repetitive new int [num] calls. Each call to new creates a new, independent, nameless array object that lives somewhere in dynamic memory. The new array, once created by new[], is accessible through cost pointer. Since the array is nameless, that cost pointer is the only link you have that leads to that nameless array created by new[]. You have no other means to access that nameless array.
And every time you do that cost = new int [num] in your cycle, you are creating a completely new, different array, breaking the link from cost to the previous array and making cost to point to the new one.
Since cost was your only link to the old array, that old array becomes inaccessible. Access to that old array is lost forever. It is becomes a memory leak.
As you correctly stated it yourself, your delete[] expression only deallocates the last array - the one cost ends up pointing to in the end. Of course, this is only true if your code ever executes the cost = new int [num] line. Note that your cycle might terminate without doing a single allocation, in which case you will apply delete[] to an uninitialized (garbage) pointer.
Yes. So you get a memory leak for each iteration of the loop except the last one.
When you use new, you allocate a new chunk of memory. Assigning the result of the new to a pointer just changes what this pointer points at. It doesn't automatically release the memory this pointer was referencing before (if there was any).
First off this line is wrong:
memset(cost, 0, num);
It assumes an int is only one char long. More typically it's four. You should use something like this if you want to use memset to initialise the array:
memset(cost, 0, num*sizeof(*cost));
Or better yet dump the memset and use this when you allocate the memory:
cost = new int[num]();
As others have pointed out the delete is incorrectly placed and will leak all memory allocated by its corresponding new except for the last. Move it into the loop.
Every time you allocate new memory for the array, the memory that has been previously allocated is leaked. As a rule of thumb you need to free memory as many times as you have allocated.
I'm having a memory leak issue and it's related to an array of structs inside a class (not sure if it matters that they're in a class). When I call delete on the struct, the memory is not cleared. When I use the exact same process with int and dbl it works fine and frees the memory as it should.
I've created very simple examples and they work correctly so it's related to something else in the code but I'm not sure what that could be. I never get any errors and the code executes correctly. However, the allocation / deallocation occurs in a loop so the memory usage continually rises.
In other words, here's a summary of the problem:
struct myBogusStruct {
int bogusInt1, bogusInt2;
};
class myBogusClass {
public:
myBogusStruct *bogusStruct;
};
void main(void) {
int i, arraySize;
double *bogusDbl;
myBogusClass bogusClass;
// arraySize is read in from an input file
for(i=0;i<100;i++) {
bogusDbl = new double[arraySize];
bogusClass.bogusStruct = new myBogusStruct[arraySize];
// bunch of other code
delete [] bogusDbl; // this frees memory
delete [] bogusClass.bogusStruct; // this does not free memory
}
}
When I remove the bunch of other code, both delete lines work correctly. When it's there, though, the second delete line does nothing. Again, I never get any errors from the code, just memory leaks. Also, if I replace arraySize with a fixed number like 5000 then both delete lines works correctly.
I'm not really sure where to start looking - what could possibly cause the delete line not to work?
There is no reason at all for you to either allocate or delete myBogusDbl inside the for loop, because arraySize never changes inside the loop.
Same goes for myBogusClass.myBogusStruct. No reason to allocate/delete it at all inside the loop:
myBogusDbl = new double[arraySize];
myBogusClass.myBogusStruct = new bogusStruct[arraySize];
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
// bunch of other code
}
delete[] myBogusDbl;
delete[] myBogusClass.myBogusStruct;
You should also consider using std::vector instead of using raw memory allocation.
Now to the possible reason of why the second delete in the original code doesn't do anything: deleting a NULL pointer does, by definition, nothing. It's a no-op. So for debugging purposes, try introducing a test before deleting it to see if it's NULL and if yes abort(). (I'd use a debugger instead though, as it's much quicker to set up a watch expression there compared to writing debug code.)
In general though, we need to see that "bunch of other code".
Ok, so i'm just learning about memory leaks. i ran valgrind to find memory leaks. i get the following:
==6134== 24 bytes in 3 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 4
==6134== at 0x4026351: operator new(unsigned int) (vg_replace_malloc.c:255)
==6134== by 0x8048B74: readInput(char&) (in calc)
so does that definitively mean the leak is in my readInput function? if so, how do i get rid of the memory leaks? here's the offending function:
double* readInput(char& command){
std::string in;
std::getline(std::cin, in);
if(!isNumber(in)){
if(in.length()>1){
command = 0;
}
else{
command = in.c_str()[0];
}
return NULL;
}
else{
return new double(atof(in.c_str()));
}
}
thanks!
// ...
return new double(atof(in.c_str()));
// ...
new acquires resource from free store which is being returned. The returned value must be deallocated using delete to avoid memory leak.
If you are calling the function in a while loop, number should be definitely deallocated using delete before running the loop next time. Just using delete once will only deallocate the very last source acquired.
Edit:
// ....
while( condition1 )
{
double *number = NULL ;
number = readInput(command) ;
if( condition2 )
{ .... }
else
{ .... }
delete number ; // Should be done inside the loop itself.
// readInput either returns NULL or a valid memory location.
// delete can be called on a NULL pointer.
}
You're returning a new double... When is that freed? You do call delete on it at some point... right?
Personally, I would recommend just returning non-zero for success and zero for failure and put the value in a double * (or double &) parameter. That way you don't need to bother with new at all.
You return a newly allocated double. Do you delete it somewhere?
Why are you returning a pointer to a newly allocated double? Why not just return a double? It isn't a big deal to return an eight-byte temporary value, and the caller can decide what it wants to do with it (including allocating a new double on the heap if it likes). Assuming the values aren't large, I'd much rather return a temporary. Having the new closer conceptually to the actual use makes the memory management easier.
Moreover, allocating large numbers of very small blocks can lead to inefficient heap use and heap fragmentation, so that the program might run out of memory when it wouldn't otherwise, and might not be able to allocate a large chunk even if it looks like there's plenty left. This may or may not matter (and the extra time needed to allocate memory may or may not matter, especially in a function whose running time is probably dominated by I/O). This is likely micro-optimization, but if there is no good reason for such small allocations you may as well get in the habit of not using them.
My lack of C++ experience, or rather my early learning in garbage collected languages is really stinging me at the moment and I have a problem working with strings in C++.
To make it very clear, using std::string or equlivents is not an option - this is char* 's all the way.
So: what I need to do is very simple and basically boils down to concatenating strings. At runtime I have 2 classes.
One class contains "type" information in the form of a base filename.
in the header:
char* mBaseName;
and later, in the .cpp it is loaded with info passed in from elsewhere.
mBaseName = attributes->BaseName;
The 2nd class provides version information in the form of a suffix to the base file name, it's a static class and implemented like this at present:
static const char* const suffixes[] = {"Version1", "Version", "Version3"}; //etc.
static char* GetSuffix()
{
int i = 0;
//perform checks on some data structures
i = somevalue;
return suffixes[i];
}
Then, at runtime the base class creates the filename it needs:
void LoadStuff()
{
char* suffix = GetSuffix();
char* nameToUse = new char[50];
sprintf(nameToUse, "%s%s",mBaseName,suffix);
LoadAndSetupData(nameToUse);
}
And you can see the problem immediately. nameToUse never gets deleted, memory leak.
The suffixes are a fixed list, but the basefilenames are arbitrary. The name that is created needs to persist beyond the end of "LoadStuff()" as it's not clear when if and how it is used subsequently.
I am probably worrying too much, or being very stupid, but similar code to LoadStuff() happens in other places too, so it needs solving. It's frustrating as I don't quite know enough about the way things work to see a safe and "un-hacky" solution. In C# I'd just write:
LoadAndSetupData(mBaseName + GetSuffix());
and wouldn't need to worry.
Any comments, suggestions, or advice much appreciated.
Update
The issue with the code I am calling LoadAndSetupData() is that, at some point it probably does copy the filename and keep it locally, but the actual instantiation is asynchranous, LoadAndSetupData actually puts things into a queue, and at that point at least, it expects that the string passed in still exists.
I do not control this code so I can't update it's function.
Seeing now that the issue is how to clean up the string that you created and passed to LoadAndSetUpData()
I am assuming that:
LoadAndSetUpData() does not make its own copy
You can't change LoadAndSetUpData() to do that
You need the string to still exist for some time after LoadAndSetupData() returns
Here are suggestions:
Can you make your own queue objects to be called? Are they guaranteed to be called after the ones that use your string. If so, create cleanup queue events with the same string that call delete[] on them
Is there a maximum number you can count on. If you created a large array of strings, could you use them in a cycle and be assured that when you got back to the beginning, it would be ok to reuse that string
Is there an amount of time you can count on? If so, register them for deletion somewhere and check that after some time.
The best thing would be for functions that take char* to take ownership or copy. Shared ownership is the hardest thing to do without reference counting or garbage collection.
EDIT: This answer doesn't address his problem completely -- I made other suggestions here:
C++ string manipulation
His problem is that he needs to extend the scope of the char* he created to outside the function, and until an asynchronous job is finished.
Original Answer:
In C++, if I can't use the standard library or Boost, I still have a class like this:
template<class T>
class ArrayGuard {
public:
ArrayGuard(T* ptr) { _ptr = ptr; }
~ArrayGuard() { delete[] _ptr; }
private:
T* _ptr;
ArrayGuard(const ArrayGuard&);
ArrayGuard& operator=(const ArrayGuard&);
}
You use it like:
char* buffer = new char[50];
ArrayGuard<char *> bufferGuard(buffer);
The buffer will be deleted at the end of the scope (on return or throw).
For just simple array deleting for dynamic sized arrays that I want to be treated like a static sized array that gets released at the end of the scope.
Keep it simple -- if you need fancier smart pointers, use Boost.
This is useful if the 50 in your example is variable.
The thing to remember with C++ memory management is ownership. If the LoadAndSetupData data is not going to take ownership of the string, then it's still your responsibility. Since you can't delete it immediately (because of the asynchronicity issue), you're going to have to hold on to those pointers until such time as you know you can delete them.
Maintain a pool of strings that you have created:
If you have some point in time where you know that the queue has been completely dealt with, you can simply delete all the strings in the pool.
If you know that all strings created after a certain point in time have been dealt with, then keep track of when the strings were created, and you can delete that subset. - If you can somehow find out when an individual string has been dealt with, then just delete that string.
class StringPool
{
struct StringReference {
char *buffer;
time_t created;
} *Pool;
size_t PoolSize;
size_t Allocated;
static const size_t INITIAL_SIZE = 100;
void GrowBuffer()
{
StringReference *newPool = new StringReference[PoolSize * 2];
for (size_t i = 0; i < Allocated; ++i)
newPool[i] = Pool[i];
StringReference *oldPool = Pool;
Pool = newPool;
delete[] oldPool;
}
public:
StringPool() : Pool(new StringReference[INITIAL_SIZE]), PoolSize(INITIAL_SIZE)
{
}
~StringPool()
{
ClearPool();
delete[] Pool;
}
char *GetBuffer(size_t size)
{
if (Allocated == PoolSize)
GrowBuffer();
Pool[Allocated].buffer = new char[size];
Pool[Allocated].buffer = time(NULL);
++Allocated;
}
void ClearPool()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Allocated; ++i)
delete[] Pool[i].buffer;
Allocated = 0;
}
void ClearBefore(time_t knownCleared)
{
size_t newAllocated = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < Allocated; ++i)
{
if (Pool[i].created < knownCleared)
{
delete[] Pool[i].buffer;
}
else
{
Pool[newAllocated] = Pool[i];
++newAllocated;
}
}
Allocated = newAllocated;
}
// This compares pointers, not strings!
void ReleaseBuffer(char *knownCleared)
{
size_t newAllocated = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < Allocated; ++i)
{
if (Pool[i].buffer == knownCleared)
{
delete[] Pool[i].buffer;
}
else
{
Pool[newAllocated] = Pool[i];
++newAllocated;
}
}
Allocated = newAllocated;
}
};
Since std::string is not an option, for whatever reason, have you looked into smart pointers? See boost
But I can only encourage you to use std::string.
Christian
If you must use char*'s, then LoadAndSetupData() should explicitly document who owns the memory for the char* after the call. You can do one of two things:
Copy the string. This is probably the simplest thing. LoadAndSetupData copies the string into some internal buffer, and the caller is always responsible for the memory.
Transfer ownership. LoadAndSetupData() documents that it will be responsible for eventually freeing the memory for the char*. The caller doesn't need to worry about freeing the memory.
I generally prefer safe copying as in #1, because the allocator of the string is also responsible for freeing it. If you go with #2, the allocator has to remember NOT to free things, and memory management happens in two places, which I find harder to maintain. In either case, it's a matter of explicitly documenting the policy so that the caller knows what to expect.
If you go with #1, take a look at Lou Franco's answer to see how you might allocate a char[] in an exception-safe, sure to be freed way using a guard class. Note that you can't (safely) use std::auto_ptr for arrays.
Since you need nameToUse to still exist after the function, you are stuck using new, what I would do is return a pointer to it, so the caller can "delete" it at a later time when it is no longer needed.
char * LoadStuff()
{
char* suffix = GetSuffix();
char* nameToUse = new char[50];
sprintf("%s%s",mBaseName,suffix);
LoadAndSetupData(nameToUse);
return nameToUse;
}
then:
char *name = LoadStuff();
// do whatever you need to do:
delete [] name;
There is no need to allocate on heap in this case. And always use snprintf:
char nameToUse[50];
snprintf(nameToUse, sizeof(nameToUse), "%s%s",mBaseName,suffix);
Where exactly nameToUse is used beyond the scope of LoadStuff? If someone needs it after LoadStuff it needs to pass it, along with the responisbility for memory deallocation
If you would have done it in c# as you suggested
LoadAndSetupData(mBaseName + GetSuffix());
then nothing would reference LoadAndSetupData's parameter, therefore you can safely change it to
char nameToUse[50];
as Martin suggested.
You're going to have to manage the lifetime of the memory you allocate for nameToUse. Wrapping it up in a class such as std::string makes your life a bit simpler.
I guess this is a minor outrage, but since I can't think of any better solution to your problem, I'll point out another potential problem. You need to be very careful to check the size of the buffer you're writing into when copying or concatenating strings. Functions such as strcat, strcpy and sprintf can easily overwrite the end of their target buffers, leading to spurious runtime errors and security vulnerabilities.
Apologies, my own experience is mostly on the Windows platform, where they introduced "safe" versions of these functions, called strcat_s, strcpy_s, and sprintf_s. The same goes for all their many related functions.
First: Why do you need for the allocated string to persist beyond the end of LoadStuff()? Is there a way you can refactor to remove that requirement.
Since C++ doesn't provide a straightforward way to do this kind of stuff, most programming environments use a set of guidelines about pointers to prevent delete/free problems. Since things can only be allocated/freed once, it needs to be very clear who "owns" the pointer. Some sample guidelines:
1) Usually the person that allocates the string is the owner, and is also responsible for freeing the string.
2) If you need to free in a different function/class than you allocated in, there must be an explicit hand-off of ownership to another class/function.
3) Unless explicitly stated otherwise, pointers (including strings) belong to the caller. A function, constructor, etc. cannot assume that the string pointer it gets will persist beyond the end of the function call. If they need a persistent copy of the pointer, they should make a local copy with strdup().
What this boils down to in your specific case is that LoadStuff() should delete[] nameToUse, and the function that it calls should make a local copy.
One alternate solution: if nameToUse is going to be passed lots of places and needs to persist for the lifetime of the program, you could make it a global variable. (This saves the trouble of making lots of copies of it.) If you don't want to pollute your global namespace, you could just declare it static local to the function:
static char *nameToUse = new char[50];
Thankyou everyone for your answers. I have not selected one as "the answer" as there isn't a concrete solution to this problem and the best discussions on it are all upvoted be me and others anyway.
Your suggestions are all good, and you have been very patient with the clunkiness of my question. As I am sure you can see, this is a simplification of a more complicated problem and there is a lot more going on which is connected with the example I gave, hence the way that bits of it may not have entirely made sense.
For your interest I have decided to "cheat" my way out of the difficulty for now. I said that the base names were arbitrary, but this isn't quite true. In fact they are a limited set of names too, just a limited set that could change at some point, so I was attempting to solve a more general problem.
For now I will extend the "static" solution to suffixes and build a table of possible names. This is very "hacky", but will work and moreover avoids refactoring a large amount of complex code which I am not able to.
Feedback has been fantastic, many thanks.
You can combine some of the ideas here.
Depending on how you have modularized your application, there may be a method (main?) whose execution determines the scope in which nameToUse is definable as a fixed size local variable. You can pass the pointer (&nameToUse[0] or simply nameToUse) to those other methods that need to fill it (so pass the size too) or use it, knowing that the storage will disappear when the function having the local variable exits or your program terminates by any other means.
There is little difference between this and using dynamic allocation and deletion (since the pointer holding the location will have to be managed more-or-less the same way). The local allocation is more direct in many cases and is very inexpensive when there is no problem with associating the maximum-required lifetime with the duration of a particular function's execution.
I'm not totally clear on where LoadAndSetupData is defined, but it looks like it's keeping its own copy of the string. So then you should delete your locally allocated copy after the call to LoadAndSetupData and let it manage its own copy.
Or, make sure LoadAndSetupData cleans up the allocated char[] that you give it.
My preference would be to let the other function keep its own copy and manage it so that you don't allocate an object for another class.
Edit: since you use new with a fixed size [50], you might as well make it local as has been suggested and the let LoadAndSetupData make its own copy.